"The thing about guns is they show no mercy," David Miller

[3cp1]

OK, I'm no fan of guns, but it seems to me that David Miller has a problem comprehending basic logic. How exactly can an inanimate object such as a gun show mercy? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it is the people who are using guns for criminal activity who show no mercy.

Miller loves to blame the Conservatives and American gun laws for the gun crime in Toronto. I find it odd that he refuses to blame the people who are committing the crimes for their actions, and instead blames the tools they use. So how is it that gun crime has been dropping in America? And how is it that ever since Britain and Australia introduced gun bans, gun crime has risen there? Here is a study (not funded by the gun lobby) that demonstrates that handgun bans do not reduce violent crime, in fact they often have the opposite effect.

As I say, I am not really opposed to a ban on handguns, as long as efforts are focused on keeping them out of would be criminals' hands. But I think it is downright dishonest to blame the Conservatives and American gun laws for the actions of criminals in Toronto. A better approach might be to push for tougher sentencing for perpetrators of gun crime, and it is the federal Liberals who are standing in the way of that. They've also appointed plenty of lenient judges who make sure the revolving door prison system gets these guys back out on the streets in no time.

I also think the youth in the high risk neighbourhoods need a helping hand. Maybe the feds should hire tutors to help these kids do better in school, so they have alternatives to a life of crime. Why isn't David Miller pushing for programs like that? He actually thinks he can dictate to Americans what policies to implement? I think he has a bit of a god complex. Maybe next he'll be telling the UN what to do.

 

[Hydrogen]

OK, I'm no fan of guns, but it seems to me that David Miller has a problem comprehending basic logic. How exactly can an inanimate object such as a gun show mercy?

I don't think the Mayor is aiming at "logic" in this statement; he is making a remark that is emotional in nature, underscoring the tragic death of a young, innocent bystander during a gun fight. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with it.

Handguns were not developed as door decorations or to be employed as a rapid means to open beer bottles, they are small arms for conflict: appropriate weapons for shooting at other people within confined spaces or at close range.

Having a handgun suggests that this use, or a recognition of this use, is in mind when someone acquires such a weapon. So the argument that suggests that guns don't kill people, people kill people, quietly glosses over the fact that handguns were designed to wound or kill people. So no, they are not about mercy.

The thing about pushing for tougher sentences for those who perpetrate guns crimes means that there is already a victim. Someone already suffered or died in order to get to this sentencing - regardless of how lenient or harsh the judge is.

As for the studies that demonstrate handgun bans do not reduce violent crime, and suggesting that they often have the opposite effect, this is called an argument from adverse consequences. The reasoning is questionable when a qualifier such as "often" is slipped in. The problem is that violent crime is more than just a relationship to the availability of guns, or the lack of. So the statement that banning handguns will result in a higher rate of violent crime is not proven. It can in some instances, but it is not a rule, and as a result, not a sound basis for arguing against the banning of handguns.

So long as guns are around, they will get into the hands of people who will use them on other people.

 

[afransen]

To to omit that the rise in gun crime in Australia and in the UK following handgun bans is likely attributable to other causes than the handgun ban. Who's to say that gun crime wouldn't have risen further without the ban?

 

[3cp1]

By focusing on a handgun ban, and blaming the problem on the Conservatives and US policy, Miller is letting criminals off the hook by not holding them accountable for their actions, and preventing us from asking the hard questions. Let's say Miller gets his handgun ban, and manages to change US gun laws. Does anyone honestly believe for a minute that gun crime will drop in Toronto? Most of the guys using these guns are also selling drugs, running prostitution operations, or committing robberies. Last time I checked, all of these activities were illegal. That's why they call them criminals. They have no respect for the law or human life. Maybe Miller should start looking at strategies for changing attitudes and behaviour in these communities where human life is seen as cheap. But I guess blaming Conservatives and America is much easier and is a popular pastime in Toronto, scoring him easy political points. Miller seems to be more interested in optics than taking a serious look at how to reduce gun crime.

 

[3cp1]

From today's Globe, referring to the two men charged with killing an 11 year boy:

July 24, 2007

Toronto police and prosecutors have been trying to get Gregory Sappleton and Akiel Eubank off the streets for years.

The two men, just out of their teens, have a history of criminal charges. In Mr. Eubank's case, those charges include weapons offences, allegations he assaulted a police officer and, on one occasion, eight counts of failing to comply with bail conditions.

I think the real issue here is the revolving door prison system. Keep these guys locked up and gun crime will drop. Much of the gun crime in Toronto is committed by repeat offenders who have been incarcerated. While I'm not opposed to banning handguns, I think Miller is disingenuous to suggest that it will do anything to reduce gun crime in Toronto.

 

[Blixtein]

While we're banning handguns maybe we should also ban murder.

 

[syn]

OK, I'm no fan of guns, but it seems to me that David Miller has a problem comprehending basic logic. How exactly can an inanimate object such as a gun show mercy? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it is the people who are using guns for criminal activity who show no mercy.

Miller loves to blame the Conservatives and American gun laws for the gun crime in Toronto. I find it odd that he refuses to blame the people who are committing the crimes for their actions, and instead blames the tools they use. So how is it that gun crime has been dropping in America? And how is it that ever since Britain and Australia introduced gun bans, gun crime has risen there? Here is a study (not funded by the gun lobby) that demonstrates that handgun bans do not reduce violent crime, in fact they often have the opposite effect.

As I say, I am not really opposed to a ban on handguns, as long as efforts are focused on keeping them out of would be criminals' hands. But I think it is downright dishonest to blame the Conservatives and American gun laws for the actions of criminals in Toronto. A better approach might be to push for tougher sentencing for perpetrators of gun crime, and it is the federal Liberals who are standing in the way of that. They've also appointed plenty of lenient judges who make sure the revolving door prison system gets these guys back out on the streets in no time.

I also think the youth in the high risk neighbourhoods need a helping hand. Maybe the feds should hire tutors to help these kids do better in school, so they have alternatives to a life of crime. Why isn't David Miller pushing for programs like that? He actually thinks he can dictate to Americans what policies to implement? I think he has a bit of a god complex. Maybe next he'll be telling the UN what to do.

I think you're getting a little carried away. I don't see anything wrong with Miller's statement. He is simply saying that a stray bullet has no mercy - the bullet was not intended for the victim in this case, but that really didn't matter.

No one, including Miller, is absolving the perpetrators of any responsibility...but you can't deny that guns are part of the problem.
And Miller has been pushing community programs.

 

[brettrobinson]

I think you're getting a little carried away. I don't see anything wrong with Miller's statement. He is simply saying that a stray bullet has no mercy - the bullet was not intended for the victim in this case, but that really didn't matter.

No one, including Miller, is absolving the perpetrators of any responsibility...but you can't deny that guns are part of the problem.
And Miller has been pushing community programs.

I agree. I take his comments to mean that a stray bullet does not discriminate where or who it ends up in.

These people should NOT be allowed out on bail. If you are charged with gang related activities (gun or no gun) then behind bars is where you should remain - PERIOD!!

 

[3cp1]

I agree. I take his comments to mean that a stray bullet does not discriminate where or who it ends up in.

These people should NOT be allowed out on bail. If you are charged with gang related activities (gun or no gun) then behind bars is where you should remain - PERIOD!!

I agree wholeheartedly. Too bad Miller only focuses on handgun bans instead of our failed criminal justice system. It is the Liberal senate that has stood in the way of mandatory minimum sentences. Why is Miller not asking them to change their policy? Handgun bans will do nothing to stop criminals from using them, just as a ban on crack has done nothing to stop them from dealing.

 

[3cp1]

I think you're getting a little carried away. I don't see anything wrong with Miller's statement. He is simply saying that a stray bullet has no mercy - the bullet was not intended for the victim in this case, but that really didn't matter.

No one, including Miller, is absolving the perpetrators of any responsibility...but you can't deny that guns are part of the problem.
And Miller has been pushing community programs.

Miller pushes for community programs like these which hire at risk youth to become basketball and soccer coaches. There's nothing wrong with coaching, I just wonder how much demand is really out there. Is there a huge shortage of basketball coaches at the moment? I'm pretty sure there's a shortage of construction workers. Why doesn't the city have programs to teach these guys how to pour concrete or install drywall instead? Or why not have tutors so some of them can go on to higher education? York University is right near several of these troubled neighbourhoods. It seems like a golden opportunity to me to establish some sort of partnership.

 

[Admiral Beez]

While we're banning handguns maybe we should also ban murder.

Guns don't kill people - bullets kill people.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Handguns have only one purpose: killing people. There is no reason for them to be manufactured in this country, or to be available for purchase. They should be banned, and now.

Following from Beez's statement, if we accept that as true, then purchases of ammunition should be limited by amount per buyer and should only be available for purchase during hunting season.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

 

[Admiral Beez]

Handguns have only one purpose: killing people. There is no reason for them to be manufactured in this country, or to be available for purchase. They should be banned, and now.

Following from Beez's statement, if we accept that as true, then purchases of ammunition should be limited by amount per buyer and should only be available for purchase during hunting season.

Problem is that banning handguns will not greatly affect the availability of handguns to the criminals. First of all, it is very difficult to obtain a legal handgun in Canada, since the legal and regulatory hoops the average citizen must jump through are siginificant. Yes, there are gun collectors out there who's houses are robbed and their guns stolen by criminals; so by all means ban the sale of handguns in Canada. It won't stop much in the illegal trade of guns, but perhaps it might slow it down.

Now, the real issue on hand guns is how to stop them from getting into Canada from the USA. For example, almost anyone can walk into most gunshops in Virginia and pending the waiting period, buy as many guns as they want. It's even better at gun shows, where almost any weapon can be bought with little regulation. Then, it's simply a drive to the Canadian border with your guns in the truck, and then off to the "Townships" to sell the guns for a quick profit.

IMO, this latter example is buy far how most guns used criminally enter Canada, and I can't figure out how we can stop it, without taking apart everyones' car at the border. Sure you can utilize gunpowder sensing equipment, but if it's a new gun, then it's impossible to differentiate it from the metal parts of a car.

Thus, the only way to stop gun violence in Toronto IMO is go after the shooters, not their weapon's supply. There are far fewer shooters than guns, so the odds of success are better. First of all, anyone who commits a gun crime in Canada who was not born here should be charged, convicted and then deported. That includes folks like myself who were born outside of Canada but have Canadian citizenship - if you commit a capital crime, you lose your citizenship and are deported. And no I don't care if the criminal came to Canada as a toddler and became a criminal on Canada's watch. Jamaica and other crimimal supply states will complain, but tough luck mahn. Second, anyone else who can't be deported and who uses a gun in a crime in Canada should be locked away, without parole for the maximum of their sentence. It's not perfect, since when they finally get our of jail, they'll be new issues, but we need the strictest penalties to be enforced.

 

[theman23]

First of all, anyone who commits a gun crime in Canada who was not born here should be charged, convicted and then deported. That includes folks like myself who were born outside of Canada but have Canadian citizenship - if you commit a capital crime, you lose your citizenship and are deported. And no I don't care if the criminal came to Canada as a toddler and became a criminal on Canada's watch. Jamaica and other crimimal supply states will complain, but tough luck mahn.

Sorry, but this idea is insane. All it'll do is further cement the idea that immigrants are second class citizens in Canada. It will further alienate immigrant communities, even ones that don't have high criminal numbers. Citizenship means you are equal to all other Canadians and I see no reason to change it. If you really want to be able to deport people, extend the amount of time it takes for a citizen to become eligible for citizenship. There is no need to water down Canadian citizenship.